Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Britain - The Haven for Terrorists

Why do we have politicians? My impression is that they were there to make laws to protect the innocent, ensure we're all kept as safe as possible and to liaise with other countries to achieve the first two reasons.

Now we have a situation in which the British Immigration Appeals Commision's chairman has openly admitted a man was an Al-Qa'ida operative.

Mr Justice Mitting, in a written ruling of the tribunal, said: "For the reasons stated, we are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qa'ida operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the UK and that... it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

But he added that the tribunal was allowing the appeal because "the issue of safety on return" made it impossible to deport Naseer to Pakistan.

Mr Justice Mitting added that Faraz Khan could "safely be taken to have been willing to participate" in Naseer's plans but that his appeal too was being allowed on the grounds of his safety on return.

What has been going on with the last labour government? Why have they not come to some agreement with Pakistan about the deportation of suspects and ensured they will be treated fairly? After all, Pakistan is one of our allies. It begs the question as to what the various Foreign and Home Secretaries were doing. It has been evident for some years that many suspected terrorists come from Pakistan - so Gordon Brown told us.

It's time Theresa May stepped up to the plate and put the interests of the British people foremost. It has been said she will not contest the decision to allow Naseer to stay in Britain. Ms May stated she was "disappointed" at the ruling and "We are now taking all possible measures to ensure they do not engage in terrorist activity."

Why should we pay large sums of money to keep Naseer and his friends in the UK? Ensuring they no longer pose a security risk will involve many security staff who could be far better employed elsewhere.

This is a stunningly-well flagged up report, IMHO. The language is gripping and it goes straight to the heart of the dilemma. If I may say, it's why your blog can be so compelling. That language thing.

I don't think the root point is party political, though. If the view of the courts is, for whatever reason, it isn't safe to deport in a particular case, then at present it seems there's no choice but to release. The intermediate option, holding folk unless they agree to get on the plane, is gone now. Any state of any size faces the same dilemma. It seems to me that it's something where governments should reflect citizens' values when they formulate policy.

I haven't read Craig's opinion William but I know what it will be. The chap would be tortured. Where do we draw the line between allowing folk from another country to come here, accordingly to serious crime officers they were planning serious crime and even today the committee admitted that, then said we must pay many hundreds of thousands keeping this man off our streets.

I really am fed up with the criminal element being treated far better than many of citizens.

Take a wander round some city sheltered housing in winter and see old folk lying in bed all day because it's too cold to get up and they can't afford to heat their place. Maybe they're not being physically beaten etc but still it's a form of abuse.

I always thought that the basis of justice in this country in both the Scottish and English legal systems was that you were innocent until proven guilty and that you always were given a chance to defend yourself against the prosecution evidence presented against you in court.

In fact the price fixing trial against BA and Virgin by the OFT collapsed because prosecution evidence was not given to the defence before the trial even reached the court.

Abid Naseer has been convicted of no offence. There was a huge hoo-haa of armed police and public arrests but the case came to nothing. No bomb, no bomb making chemicals, no bomb diagrams, no plan of attack, no bomb timers, nothing that could be used even to bring the case to trial. Charges were never brought.

All the security services released were a series of emails sent back to Pakistan which they are convinced are in, "code".

The evidence used in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was held in secret and Abid Naseer and his solicitor was given no chance to challenge any of the evidence.

He's been branded a terrorist by the SIAC not the courts without being given the chance to see the evidence against him.

Doug I'm aware Abid Naseer has been convicted of no offence and the case came to nothing.

I'm also aware there in information which is so sensitive to national security the defence were not furnished with it. Having followed this case I should think that's where the case collapsed.

The email business is the drama given out as public information and all that was released as you say.

I'm not taking sides at all in this but I do know there is more to it than publicly recorded as I'm sure you are too. However, for a trial to be successful evidence must be produced and if it isn't then the accused must be not guilty.

My other point is why the UK hasn't made a deportation agreement with Pakistan? We have them with other 'friendly' countries so why not Pakistan?

As for Craig's piece, where is his evidence that the intelligence reports where obtained under torture? Just because he's had experience in a foreign land of torture proceedings isn't enough.

I agree with his point about proceedings held in secret being a farce. That's not the justice system we need or want.

But then, Labour introduced trials without juries and few of us protested.

Dear Dear! With the amount of lies that has been put out by both the US and UK (Labour) governments with regard to "terrorists" and terrorism a lot of people are so easily conned with regard to this.

Funny how so many people have been "arrested" for terrorism and yet practically no one has been charged and jailed.

Funny how two "terrorist" attacks, 911 and 7/7, were expertly carried out and all the rest have been incompetent buffoons that have failed and have been easy to catch.

Funny how most of the "terrorists" that were supposed to have done 911 are still alive and the buildings were actually turned to dust with direct energy weapons.

Funny how the suicide "terrorists" who were supposed to have blown themselves up at 7/7 were actually shot dead at Canary Wharf to shut them up because they were tricked as they thought they were taking part in a security exersize.

People who lazily believe what the government tell them regarding these "terrorists" and these events are just as guilty as these governments who did carry out these terrorism acts against their own people to get exactly the reaction that you are giving.

Terrorism is the new cold war - an imaginary enemy to keep the people in fear and give the government cart blanche to do what they want.

I would agree terrorism is the new 'control' from the powerful Billy. Wonderful isn't it that our armed forces are away in a distant land fighting 'terrorists' while our borders are wide open for all and sundry.

Hence my reason for putting terrorists in inverted commas Billy. Of course they are. In fact I very much doubt if any British politician could give you a sensible reason why our troops are there. Why not? Because all they know is that Bush wanted ours there and that was enough for Blair and Brown to jump. The reasons were immaterial.

One wonders whose Human rights are paramount, the people who have seemingly come to this country allegedly to create mayhem and are not citizens , and the resident citizens of this country going about their lawful business, who are threatened with lifelong torture from injuries which could be inflicted by the actions of the alleged terrorists.Who are the justice system and government supposed to be protecting and who is paying them for this, and why is it not been done. If these people suspected of wishing us harm are not legally permanantly resident of this country, send them back to where they come from, the authorities there may know more about these people than we do,but if they are of dubious repute, why should we not just repatriate them?

The point is, he is a danger to the British public. Britain belongs to the British people and this government (such as it is), has been elected to represent and protect US, not Pakistani citizens who have abused our trust.

If they face torture when they return, it will be nothing compared to the lives they would have taken and the suffering they would have caused had they succeeded in their plot.

If we are not allowed to send them home , we should make them at home here to show them the benefits of being British.I suggest recolonising Foula, with no internet and only the one international phone line, let them understand how hard won the lifestyle we now have has been for many of us If they want to play with terrorist things and blow up the ISLAND they live on fine, not any longer our problem!!There must be a few more uninhabited islands about the place we'own' that could be brought in to play in this way too, heck be generous send their families with them so we don't infringe their rights to 'a family life!!!

Funny people like Sue etc would have been coming out with the same garbage with regard to the Birmingham Six etc who were totally innocent of the charges and fitted up by our police, security services and government.

Nothing like a bit of ignorance and lazyness to go find out the facts regarding the "terrorist" events in the UK and US.

Just what our governments, the actual perpretrators, want is easily suckered numpties reacting just the way they planned.

The argument is Sue that he wasn't convicted of anything so he's really a good lad and the security services are just picking on him.

Justice from security isn't all black and white, much as many would like it to be. There are many cases where our intelligence services don't have black and white evidence and therefore can't prosecute suspects.

Strange how so many of this group immediately fled to Pakistan yet this one says his life is at risk. What about his pals over there? I understand two of them want to come back here now and have been told no. They'll find a way I'm sure.

I do object to money being spent on ensuring suspects are kept out of the way of the public. What a waste.